[lkml]   [2006]   [Feb]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: CD writing in future Linux (stirring up a hornets' nest)
    Joerg Schilling schrieb am 2006-02-02:

    > Jan Engelhardt <> wrote:
    > > It's shorter than /dev/c0t0d0s0? Well, I think it's because people think
    > > in terms of connectors (my drive is IDE therefore it must be hdc) rather
    > > than protocol (my drive does ATAPI therefore it must be
    > > /dev/scsi/c0t0d0s0).
    > Is there any reason why the people with small PCs should dominate the
    > people with big machines?

    No side should dominate.

    > If you use /dev/hd*, you loose control after you add more than ~ 6-10 disks.

    I don't see how a letter such as /dev/hdo /dev/hdp /dev/hdq is much
    different than an opaque number tuple as 1,15,0 1,16,0 1,17,0... either
    is a string with systematic generation, and that's about it.

    I'm still wondering why mtst (mid-layer access to control tape drives)
    is happy with /dev/nst0 nst1 ... (device name) and cdrecord (or its
    author) isn't. cdrecord or libscg should be agnostic of these schemas
    and take any opaque string that works properly for the given system
    without complaining. It can invent any numbering scheme it likes, but
    requesting that the kernel does it if it has no further use for it is
    barking up the wrong tree.

    Matthias Andree
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2006-02-02 11:17    [W:0.021 / U:9.092 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site